As a wise utilitatian philisopher if I could kill a seven year old girl and cure cancer naturally I would do it.
Do I want governments that I already do not trust and have been shown to be corrupt to have the power of life and death over their people? No. How many examples do we need to see of governments fabricating crimes against those that oppose them, in enlightened countires those people live in others they are quickly executed for the "common good".
Collateral damage is ok? So you support the use of agent orange, napalm, the bombing of baby milk factories, the occasional village being wiped out because the troops are upset, maybe a bit of ethnic cleansing here and there.
More science? The science is already so complex that no-one on the jury can understand it. Every lawyer knows that for every expert arguing one interpretation of "the facts" they can find an opposing expert. There have been several such cases even here in Australia.
The problem with the current systems if incarceration is they are incredibly expensive. Science is indeed the answer. In the future science and technology should make the prison system far more automated and less expensive. I also think that prisoners should be forced to work and be productive members of society if they want societies benefits. If they are willing to sit in a bare cell and eat bread and water then they can do nothing. But if they want TV, nice meals, exercise equipment etc then like every other capable member of scoiety they need to do a decent day's work. Lifespan is irrelevant is they are cost neutral.
Penalties as a deterrant are a very debatable feature. Beyond a certain point do you think they really affect any criminals? Do you think any would be rapist thinks to himself, "if I rape this girl I will get 30 years in jail, that is ok"? They think they will get no penalty so the penalty does not matter. It is only by increacing the probability that they will be caught that perpertrators are put off. Really trivial penalties are also a problem, for example someone that has stolen 50+ cars getting a suspended sentence because they have ADHD, they need to be at a suitable level where any reasonable person will fear them.
Pros of the death penalty:
Don't have to keep paying to keep them alive for the rest of their life.
Make it cost neutral through science, technology and inmate production.
No chance of them escaping and recommitting crime.
Do you know how many people in Australia escape from maximum security prisons? None.
Arguably a way to deter some people from killing and raping.
No it isn't.
No chance of them corrupting other people in jail who might have only assaulted someone or something.
True but prisons already do that despite the fact that we already segregate the hard core from "softer" prisoners. What % of prisoners are you proposing executing? Anyone that may be a bad influence? As home detention methods get better for "soft" criminals this should improve.
Cons:
The state has the power to murder.
I barely trust the Australian government, and we have more problems with apathy and incompetence than rampant high levels of corruption, imagine living overseas.
Sometimes innocent people are put on death row.
And murdered. Innocent. Killed. And we approve.
Have you never heard that two wrongs don't make a right?
Rwanda. One of the worst genocides of all time. We need to punish the guilty right? What did the government do in some cases? Rounded up all suspected Hutu militia and put then in literal dungeons. So crowded they couldn't all lie down at the same time. Put on starvation rations. No toilet facilities so eventually people are ankle deep waste. No medical attentian. No sunlight. Disease rampant. Deaths by the hour. How do you get out? Confess to genocide. If you are innocent tough choice. What would you do?
Last edited by yodabig at 9/29/2012 7:02:03 PM